Cover not available
Part of
Metaphor, Metonymy and Lexicogenesis
Andrew Goatly
[Human Cognitive Processing 78] 2024
► pp. 321–337

References

Published online: 8 November 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.78.refs
Adams, V. 1973. An introduction to modern English word-formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ahrens, K., Liu, H. L., Lee, C. Y., Gong, S. P., Fang, S. Y. and Hsu, Y. Y. 2006. Functional MRI of conventional and anomalous metaphors in Mandarin Chinese. Brain and Language. 100(2), 163–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aitchison, J. 1994. Words in the mind. 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Allan, K. 2008. Metaphor and metonymy: a diachronic Approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Allan, K. and Burridge, K. 2004. Euphemism and dysphemism. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Al-Sharafi, A. 2004. Textual metonymy: a semiotic approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arbib, M. A., Bonaiuto, J., and Rosta, E. 2006. The mirror system hypothesis: from a macaque-like mirror system to imitation. In A. Cangelosi, A. D. M. Smith, and K. Smith, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference (EVOLANG6), Rome, Italy, 12 – 15 April 2006, (476–485). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ardila, A. 2010. A proposed re-interpretation and re-classification of aphasic syndromes. Aphasiology, 24 (3), 363–394 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Grammar in the brain: two grammar subsystems and two agrammatic types of aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 58, 1–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Massachussetts: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S. 2001. Humorous texts: a semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin, New York: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S. and Raskin, V. 1991. Script theory revisited: joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor 4–3/4, 293–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ayto, J. 1989. The Longman register of new words. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
1996. Lexical life expectancy – a prognostic guide. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Words: proceedings of an international symposium (181–88). Lund, 25–26 August 1995. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 36.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In G. Booij, and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1991 (109–49). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1992. In other words: a coursebook on translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination, M. Holquist and C. Emerson (Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, R. M. 1915. A Coral Island, London: Nisbet.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. 2000. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: a cognitive perspective. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2002. Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: an update. In R. Dirven and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast, (207–278). New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Motivation of construction meaning and form: the roles of metonymy and inference. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (363–401). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Salience in metonymy-motivated constructional abbreviated form with particular attention to English clippings. Cognitive Semantics 2 (2016) 30–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view (7–58). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barfield, O. 1970. The meaning of literal. In G. Watson (Ed.), Literary English since Shakespeare (22–34). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Barnbrook, G., Mason, O. and Krishnamurti, R. 2013. Collocation: applications and implications. Basingstoke: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnden, J. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy: making their connections more slippery. Cognitive Linguistics, 21 (1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, R. 1987. Norms of language. Theoretical and practical aspects. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
‘Basic level category’ 2019 [URL] retrieved 25/10/2019.
Basilio, M. 2006. Metaphor and metonymy in word-formation. D.E.L.T.A, Vol. 22, 67–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 1983. English word-formation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Morphological productivity [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Productivity: theories. In P. Stekauer, and R. Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (315–334). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Competition in English word-formation. In A. van Kemenade and B. Los (Eds.), The handbook of the history of English (177–198). Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Compounds and minor word-formation processes. In B. Aarts, and M. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (483–506). Malden MA, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
2018. Conversion as metonymy. WORD Structure, 11(2),175–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., and Plag, I. 2013. The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
‘Behavioursim’ 2022. [URL]. retrieved 10/10/2022
Benczes, R. 2013. The role of alliteration and rhyme in novel metaphorical and metonymical compounds. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 167–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biernacka, E. 2013. A discourse dynamics investigation of metonymy in talk. Ph.D thesis The Open University. [URL] retrieved 08/01/2020.
Black, M. 1962. Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, W. 1969. The little vagabond. In G. Keynes (Ed.), Complete writings (216). London: OUP.Google Scholar
Blank, A. 2001. Pathways of lexicalization. In M. Haspelmath, E. Konig, W. Oesterreicher, and W. Raible (Eds.), Language typology and language universals. Vol. 2 (1596–1608). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2:3, 153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1933. Language. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Blumberg, M. 2002. Body heat. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonyadi, A., and Samuel, M. 2013. Headlines in newspaper editorials: a contrastive study. SAGE Open, 3 (2),1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boroditsky, L., and Ramscar, M. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science, 13 (2), 185–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and symbolic power, (John B. Thompson Ed., Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson, trans.). Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. 1979. Metaphor and theory change: what is “metaphor” a metaphor for? In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (356–408). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brdar, M. 2009. Metonymies we live without. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (259–276). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar, M. and Brdar-Szabo, R. 2009. The (non-) metonymic use of place names in English, German, Hungarian, and Croatian. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (229–257). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brdar-Szabó, R. and Brdar, M. 2012. The problem of data in the cognitive linguistic research on metonymy: a cross-linguistic perspective Language Sciences 34(6), 728–745.Google Scholar
Bronte, C. 1967 (f.p. 1853). Villette. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. 1983. Childs talk: learning to use language. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Butterfield, J. 2008. Damp squid: the English language laid bare. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Caballero, R. 2003. Metaphor and genre: the presence and role of metaphor in the Building Review. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 145–167, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
‘CallHome – English Corpus’ 2020 [URL] retrieved 1/07/2020.
Cameron, L. 2003. Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
2008. Metaphor and talk. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (197–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
‘Capitalism’ 2022. [URL] retrieved 10/10/2022.
Carr, J. and Greeves, L. 2006. The naked jape: uncovering the hidden world of jokes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2004. Language and creativity: the art of common talk. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Causley, C. 1973. Death of a Poet. In P. Larkin (Ed.), The Oxford book of twentieth-century English verse (495). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language (35–53). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, H. 1987. Relevance to what? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 10. (4), 714–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V. 1977. Psychology and language. An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
‘Class conflict’ 2023. [URL] retrieved 23/06/2023.
Clear, J. 1993. From Firth principles – computational tools for the study of collocation. In M. Baker, G. Francis and E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: in honour of John Sinclair (271–291). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. “Grammar and nonsense”: or syntax and word senses. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Words: Proceedings of an international symposium, Lund, 25–6 August 1995 (213–42). Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 36.Google Scholar
COCA [URL] retrieved 09/12/2021.
Code, C. 1987. Language, aphasia, and the right hemisphere. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. M., and Cohen, M. J. 1971. The Penguin dictionary of modern quotations London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Coleridge, S. T. 1962. Select poetry, prose and letters. S. Potter (Ed.). London: Nonesuch Press.Google Scholar
Cook, G. 2001. The Discourse of Advertising. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, E. 1977. Content-based word formation theory using the example of the type coupe-papier. In Brekle, Herbert E. and Kastovky, Dieter (Eds.), Perspectives of word formation research. Contributions to the Wuppertal word formation colloquium from 9 to 10 July 1976. (48–61). Bonn: Grundmann.Google Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1979. On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics 3, 239–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, D. 1991. Generation X: tales for an accelerated culture. London: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Crespo-Fernández, E. 2014. Euphemism and political discourse in the British regional press. Brno Studies in English 40 (1),5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crisp, P. 1996. Imagism’s metaphors: a test case. Language and Literature 5, 79–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Critser, G. 2003. Fat Land: How Americans became the fattest people in the world. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1993. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. Cognitive Linguistics 4, (4), 335–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven and R. Porings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (161–204). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. and Cruse, A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crossley-Holland, K. and Mitchell, B. 1965. The Battle of Maldon and other Old English poems. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Txtng the gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1969. Investigating English Style. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cummings, E. E. 1960. She being Brand. In Selected poems 1923–1958 (15–16). London: Faber.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. 2003. Looking for Spinoza. London and New York: Heinemann/Harcourt.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 2006. The god delusion. London: Transworld Publishers.Google Scholar
De Palma, P. and Weiner, E. J. 1992. Riddles: accessibility and knowledge representation. COLING '92: Proceedings of the 14th conference on Computational linguistics – 4, 1121–1125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debord, G. 1994. (1967). The society of the spectacle, D. Nicholson-Smith (Trans.). Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995. Collins Cobuild English Guides vol.7: Metaphor. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J., and Semino, E. 2013. Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Jong, N. H. de, Schreuder, R., and Baayen, H. 2003. Morphological resonance in the mental lexicon. In H. Baayen and R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing (65–88). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
‘Dementia UK Report’. 2023. [URL] retrieved 24/7/2023.
Dickens, C. 2004. The Pickwick Papers. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
2021. (f.p. 1846). Dombey and son. In The complete novels. London: The Classics.Google Scholar
Ding, E. 2010. Parallels, interactions and illuminations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. 1999. Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of an event structure. In R. Dirven, and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (275–287). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
2002. Metonymy and metaphor: different mental strategies of conceptualization. In R. Dirven, and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (75–112). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R. and Porings, R. 2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven, and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (435–468). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dorst, A. G., Mulder, G. and Steen, G. J. 2011. Recognition of personifications in fiction by non-expert readers. Metaphor and the Social World, 1 (2), 174–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. 2005. Word-formation in natural morphology. In P. Stekauer, and R. Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Durán Escribano, P., and Roldan Riejos, A. 2008. The role of context in the interpretation of academic and professional communication. In T. Gibert Maceda and L. Alba Juez (Eds.), Estudios de filología Inglesa: homenaje a la Dra Asunción Alba Pelayo (81–94). Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.Google Scholar
Earles, J. L., and Kersten, A. W. 2000. Adult age differences in memory for verbs and nouns. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 7 (2), 130–9. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. and Clevenger, T. Jr. 1990. The effects of schematic and affective processes on metaphorical invention. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, (2), 91–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P. 2000. Emotions revealed. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. 1951. The metaphysical poets. Selected essays (3rd edition) (281–91). London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Fainsilber, L. and Ortony, A. 1987. Metaphorical uses of language in the expression of emotions. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2 (4), 239–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and power (2nd edition). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Ferris, C. 1993. The meaning of syntax: a study in the adjectives of English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (111–138). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. and Atkins, B. T. 1992. Towards a frame-based organization of the lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer and E. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrast: new essays in semantics and lexical organization (75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., and Atkins, B. T. S. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: the challenge of corpus lexicography. In B. T. S. Atkins and A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon (349–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Describing polysemy: the case of “crawl”. In Y. Ravin and C. Leacock (Eds.), Polysemy: theoretical and computational approaches (91–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firbas, J. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1964. The Tongues of Men and Speech. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. 2008. Metaphor in pictures and multimodal representations. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (462–482). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucualt, M. 1977. Discipline and punish. London: Tavistock Press.Google Scholar
Fries, P. H. 1992. The structuring of information in written English text. Language Sciences 14 (4), 461–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frisson, S. and Pickering, M. J. 1999. The processing of metonymy: evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 25 (6), 1366–1383.Google Scholar
Gallese, V. and Lakoff, G. 2005. The brain’s concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22 (3/4), 455–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galtung, J. and Ruge, M. 1973. Structuring and selecting news. In S. Cohen and J. Young (Eds.), The manufacture of news: social problems, deviance and the mass media. London: Constable.Google Scholar
Garton, A. and Pratt, U. 1998. Learning to be literate (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. S. 1977. Consistency and diversity in brain organization. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 299, 415–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1985. Cognitive restrictions on the structure of semantic change. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical linguistics: historical word-formation (127–153). Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven, and R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (435–468). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. and Peirsman, Y. 2011. Zones facets and prototype-based metonymy. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view (89–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geis, M. L. and Zwicky, A. M. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry. 2, 561–566.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. 1982. Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D. S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: problems and perspectives (106–132). Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. and Bowdle, B. F. 2001. Convention, form and figurative language processing. Metaphor and Symbol 16, 223–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, A. 2016. The great derangement: climate change and the unthinkable. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. 2006. Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21(3), 434–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. and Gerrig, R. J. 1989. How context makes metaphor comprehension seem “special”. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 4: 154–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, P. and Glucksberg, S. 1983. On understanding metaphor: the role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22 (5), 577–590. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., and Fein, O. 1999. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (12), 1601–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding figurative language: from metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. and Keysar, B. 1993. How metaphors work. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (401–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. and McGlone, M. 1999. When love is not a journey: what metaphors mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1541–1558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. P. 1983. Metaphor in the novels of William Golding. Unpublished Ph. D thesis, University College, London University.
1994. Register and the redemption of relevance theory. Pragmatics, 3 (2), 39–82.Google Scholar
2002. The representation of nature on the BBC World Service. Text, 22 (1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Washing the brain: metaphor and hidden ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Explorations in stylistics. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. 2011. The Language of metaphors. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. P. 2012. Meaning and humour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. The poems of Edward Thomas: a case study in ecostylistics. In J. Douthwaite, D. F. Virdis, E. Zurru (Eds.), The stylistics of landscapes, the landscapes of stylistics (95–122). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2022. Two dimensions of meaning: similarity and contiguity in metaphor, metonymy, language, culture and ecology. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. P. and Hiradhar, P. 2016. Critical reading and writing in the digital age. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golding, W. 1954. Lord of the flies. London: Faber.Google Scholar
1956. Pincher Martin. London: Faber.Google Scholar
1961. Free fall. London: Faber.Google Scholar
1965. The spire. London: Faber.Google Scholar
1979. Darkness visible. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Gomez, M. 2019. The presence of Action ICM metonymies in English and Spanish football reports: a contrastive analysis. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association (AELCO), 17th-19th October 2018. [URL] retrieved 21/01/21.
Gonzalez, E. R. and Clivilles, B. S. 2017. Novel metonymy and novel metaphor as primary pragmatic processes. In M. E. Jurado, and P. G. Medina (Eds.), Where grammar meets discourse: functional and cognitive perspectives (21–35). Cordoba: Publicaciones Universidad de Córdoba.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1968. Languages of art: an approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. 1990. Metaphtonomy: the interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gradečak-Erdeljić, T. 2004. Euphemisms in the language of politics or how metonymy opens one door but closes the other. In P. Cap (Ed.), New developments in linguistic pragmatics (27). Department of English Language, University of Łódź.Google Scholar
Grady, J. E. 1997. Foundations of meaning; primary metaphors and primary scenes. University of California, Berkeley, unpublished Ph. D dissertation.
1999. A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In R. Gibbs, and G. Steen (Eds.) Metaphor in cognitive linguistics (79–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grady, Joseph E., Todd Oakley, and Seana Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and G J. Steen (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics [Current issues in linguistic theory 175] (101–24). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2009. Learner corpora: a window onto the phrasicon. In A. Barfield and H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language (60–5). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, and J. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: speech scts (41–58). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2011. Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (3), 491–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1985. Language, context and text; aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen 2004. An introduction to functional grammar (3rd revised edition). London: Hodder.Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. 1998. The genre-specific hypothesis of reading: reading poetry and encyclopaedic items. Poetics, 26, 63–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handl, S. 2011. The conventionality of figurative language: a usage-based study. Tubingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. and Sims, A. D. 2013. Understanding morphology. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. and Baayen, H. 2002. Parsing and productivity. In G. Booij and J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (203–35). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1944. The road to serfdom. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Heaney, S. 1966a. Death of a naturalist. In Death of a Naturalist (15–16). London: Faber.Google Scholar
1966b. An advancement of learning. In Death of a Naturalist (18–19). London: Faber.Google Scholar
1966c. Poor Women in a City Church. In Death of a Naturalist (42). London: Faber.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, F. and Kuiper, K. 2000. A deep depression covers the South Tasman Sea: New Zealand meteorological office weather forecasts. In A. Bell and K. Kuiper (Eds.), New Zealand English (279–296). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. 2005. Lexicalisation and institutionalisation. In P. Stekauer, and R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (353–374). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honeck, R. P., Reichman, P., and Hoffman, R. 1975. Semantic memory for metaphor: the conceptual base hypothesis. Memory and Cognition, 3, 409–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hughes, T. 1972. Pike. In Selected Poems 1957–1967 (55). London: Faber.Google Scholar
‘Humanism’ 2022. [URL] retrieved 10/10/2022.
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. 1974. On have and be languages. In M. S. Flier (Ed.), Slavic forum: essays in linguistics and literature. New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishiguro, K. 1989. The remains of the day. London: Faber.Google Scholar
Jakel, O. 1995. The metaphorical concept of mind. In, J. R. Taylor, and R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the World (197–229). New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1987. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. [URL] from Jakobson, R. 1987 (K. Pomorska and S. Rudy (Eds.)), Language in literature (1–12). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Janda, L. 2011. Metonymy in word-formation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22 (2), 359–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, I. and I Iannequin, D. 1990. Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. 1999. Constructional grounding: the role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition. Ph. D thesis. University of California.
Kastovsky, D. 2005. Hans Marchand and the Marchandeans. In P. Stekauer, and R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (99–124). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. and Fodor, J. A. 1963. The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39, 170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kauschke, C., and Stenneken, P. 2008. Differences in noun and verb processing in lexical decision cannot be due to word form and morphological complexity alone. Journal of Psychological Research, 37, 443–52.Google Scholar
1990. Emotion concepts. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Metaphor and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2005. Metaphor in culture: universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9 (1), 37–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. 1989. History and language: towards a social account of linguistic change. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, G. 2008. Style-shifting and shifting styles: a socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In G. Kristiansen and R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: language variation, cultural models, social systems (45–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 1979. Metaphor in science. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (409–419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. 1991. The evolution of an oral tradition: race-calling in Canterbury, New Zealand. Oral Tradition, 6 (1), 19–34.Google Scholar
1996. Smooth talkers: the linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. and Austin, P. 1990. They’re off and racing now: the speech of the New Zealand race caller. In A. Bell and J. Holmes (Eds.), New Zealand ways of speaking English. (195–220). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K. and Haggo, D. 1984. Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language. Language in Society, 13, 205–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1972. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the eghth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (183–217). Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (202–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. 1989. More than cool reason: a field guide to poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M. 1998. Pathways of the brain. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lancker, van D., Canter, J., and Terbeek, D. 1981. Disambiguation of ditropic sentences: acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24. 330–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1993. Reference-Point Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Metonymic grammar. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, A. (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (45–74). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, D. H. Aaron’s Rod [URL] retrieved 14/03/2024.
Leach, E. 1964. Anthropological aspects of language: animal categories and verbal abuse. In E. H. Lenneberg (Ed.), New directions in the study of language (23–63). Cambridge Mass. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1981. Semantics, 2nd edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1983. Principles of pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2008. Language and literature: style and foregrounding. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1995. Thoughts on grammaticalisation. Munich: Lincom EuropaGoogle Scholar
Levin, S. R. 1977. The Semantics of metaphor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. 2005. English word-formation processes. In P. Stekauer, P. and R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (375–428). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipka, L. 1985. Inferential features in historical semantics. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Historical linguistics: historical word-formation (339–353). Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Words, metaphors and cognition: a bridge between domains. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Words: proceedings of an international symposium, Lund, 25–6 August 1995 (49–70). Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 36.Google Scholar
1998. Word-formation, metaphor and metonymy – processes, results and their description. In C. Rodriguez (Ed.), Functional approaches to the lexicon. [Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 36], 97–112.Google Scholar
2002. English lexicology. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. 2015. Metonymy: hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication [Cambridge Studies in Cognitive Linguistics]. Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
‘Living Death’ 2024. [URL] retrieved 10/03/2024.
Lovejoy, A. O. 1960. The great chain of being: a study of the history of an idea. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Low, G. 1999. “This paper thinks”. Investigating the acceptability of the metaphor ESSAY IS A PERSON. In L. Cameron, L. and G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (221–248). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mack, D. 1975. Metaphoring as speech act: some happiness conditions for implicit similes and simple metaphors. Poetics, 4: 221–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacCormac, E. R. 1990. A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge Mass. and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Macmillan English dictionary. 2002. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Mahdawi, A. 2017. We need new words to explain these curious times. How about coffused or procrastinetflix? Guardian, 26 November 2017. retrieved 02/01/2018Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. and Schutze, H. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press [URL]
Marchand, H. 1969. [1962]. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation, 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Marks, J. 2002. What it means to be 98% chimpanzee. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J., Cummings, A. L., and Hallberg, E. T. 1992. Therapists’ intentional use of metaphor: memorability, clinical impact and possible epistemic/motivational functions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 143–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text: system and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. 2005. The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. London and New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matlock, T., Ramscar, M., and Boroditsky, L. 2005. On the experiential link between spatial and temporal language. Cognitive Science 8;29 (4), 655–64. DOI logo. PMID: 21702788.Google Scholar
May, A. 2013. To what extent and why are the following conceptual metonymies exploited across thirteen typologically varied languages? PRODUCER FOR PRODUCT; AGENT FOR ACTION; PART FOR WHOLE; WHOLE FOR PART; ACTION FOR COMPLEX EVENT; CATEGORY FOR MEMBER; MEMBER FOR CATEGORY; OBJECT FOR ACTION. Unpublished MA project, University of Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
McArthur, T. 1992. The Oxford companion to the English language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, I. 2018. The master and his emissary. London and New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McKinney, F. 2020. Opinion: Racism is America’s virus [URL] retrieved 12/04/2024
2020. Racism is America’s virus. [URL] 29/06/2020
‘Mcjobs’ 2022. [URL] retrieved 10/10/2022
Meadows, B. 2006. Distancing and showing solidarity via metaphor and metonymy in political discourse: a critical study of American statements on Iraq during the years 2004–2005. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 1 (2), 1–17.Google Scholar
Metanet [URL]
Metcalf, A. 2016. From skeddadle to selfie: words of the generations. Oxford: OUPGoogle Scholar
Mihatsch, W. 2009. Nouns are THINGS: Evidence for a grammatical metaphor. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (75–98). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. G. 2014. English lexicogenesis. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Monbiot, G. 2014. Cleansing the stock. [URL] cleansing-the-stock/retrieved 26/07/2014.
Moll, H., and Tomasello, M. 2007a. Co-operation and human cognition: the Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 362, 639–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b. How 14- and 18- month-olds know what others have experienced. Developmental Psychology, 43, 309–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, M. 2004. Fahrenheit 9/11. Dog Eat Dog Films.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. L. 2010. Lexical meaning. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nascione, A. 2001. Phraseological units in discourse. Riga: Latvian Academy of Culture.Google Scholar
Nash, W. 1980. Designs in prose, Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Nerlich, B. and Clarke, D. 2001. Elements for an integral theory of semantic change and semantic development. In R. Eckardt and K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Meaning change – meaning variation. Workshop held at Konstanz, Feb. 1999, Vol. I, (123–134). Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft Universitat Konstanz.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. 1993. Conversational joking: Humor in everyday talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ong, W. 2002. Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the Word. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Opie, I. and Opie, P. 1967. The lore and language of schoolchildren. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Orr, R. A. 1992. Slavo-Celtica. Canadian Slavonic Papers. 34.(3), 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orwell, G. 1945. Politics and the English language. Available from [URL], (1–9).
Panther, K-U. 2006. Metonymy as a usage event. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Dirven and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics (147–186). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2006, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, K-U. and Thornburg, L. 2002. The roles of metaphor and metonymy in English -er nominals. In R. Dirven, and R. Pӧrings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (279–316). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Metonymies as natural inference and activation schemas: the case of dependent clauses as independent speech acts. In K-U. Panther and L. Thornburg (Eds), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (127–147) Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. On figuration in grammar. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (1–44). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Conceptualising human as animals in English verb particle constructions. Language Value, 4 (1), 63–83.Google Scholar
Panther, K-U., Thornburg, L. and Barcelona, A. (Eds.) 2009. Metonymy and metaphor in grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A. 1996. On metonymy. Lingua, 99, 169–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paprotte, W. and Dirven, R. (Eds.) 1985. The ubiquity of metaphor. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C. 2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol, 19 (4), 245–264, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Metonymization: a key mechanism in semantic change. In R. Benczes, A. Barcelona, and F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: towards a consensus view (61–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, H. 1981/1896. Über die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre. In Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen Classe der k.b. Akademie zu München, Jahrgang 1896, 692–713. Reprinted in: L. Lipka and H. Günther (Eds.) 1981, Wortbildung (17–35). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. 1991. How to talk cricket: on linguistic competence in a subject matter. In R. Blust (Ed.), Currents in Pacific linguistics: papers on Austronesian languages and ethnolinguistics in honour of George W. Grace. (339–368). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics C-1 17.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (191–226). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pearson, H. 2003. Pollutocrats christened. Nature Online DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, C. S. 1867. On a new list of categories. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 7 (1868) (287–298), presented, 14 May 1867. Reprinted in E. C. Moore (Ed.) 1984. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A chronological edition, 2, (49–59). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Peirsman, Yves and Geeraerts, D. 2006. Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peña Cervel, M. S. and Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, J. 2009. The metonymic and metaphoric grounding of two image-schema transformations. In K-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, and A. Barcelona, (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (339–362). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. 1983. Units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piesman, M. and Hartley, M. 1984. The yuppie handbook: The state-of-the-art manual for young urban professionals. Horsham Sussex UK: Ravette Publishing.Google Scholar
Pound, E. 1957. In a Station of the Metro. In Selected Poems (35), New York: New Directions.Google Scholar
Plag, I. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Productivity. In B. Aarts, and M. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (537–556). Malden MA, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plath, S. 1981. The rabbit catcher. In T. Hughes (Ed.), Collected Poems (193). London, New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rabagliati, H., Marcus, G. F., and Pylkkänen, L. 2011. Rules, radical pragmatics and restrictions on regular polysemy. Journal of Semantics, 28, (4), 485–512. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. 2000. How metonymic are metaphors. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (93–105). New York, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2005. The ubiquity of metonymy. In J.-L. Otal Campo, I. Ferrando and B. Belles Fortuno (Eds.), Cognitive and discourse approaches to metaphor and metonymy (11–28). Castellón de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T., and Siemund, P. 2007. The construction of meaning in language. In G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg and P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (1–15). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., and Kövecses, Z. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In K.-U. Panther and G. Radden (Eds.) Metonymy in language and thought (17–59) Amsterdam: Benjamins. [URL] retrieved 25/3/2021. DOI logo
Rainer, F. 2003. Semantic change in word-formation. Linguistics, 43 (2), 415–441.Google Scholar
2005. Constraints on productivity. In P. Stekauer, and R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (335–352). Dordrecht: Springer.pp. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rapp, A. M., Mutschler, D. E., and Erb, M. 2012. Where in the brain is non-literal language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Neuroimage, 63, 600–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reijinierse, G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T. and Steen, G. 2019. Metaphor in communication: the distribution of potentially deliberate metaphor across register and word class. Corpora, 14(3), 301–326. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. and Lawler, J. M. 1981. Athematic metaphors’, Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS 17) Chicago Illinois, 318–42.Google Scholar
Rifkin, J. 1987. Time wars. New York: Touchstone/Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G. 2004. The Linguistic analysis of jokes. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., and Arbib, M. A. 1998. Language within our grasp. Trends in Neurosciences, 21, 188–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez, F. J. and Diez Velasco, O. I. 2000. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In A. Barcelona (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (109–132). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. and Pérez Hernández, L. 2003. Cognitive operations and pragmatic implication. In K.-U. Panther and L. Thornburg (Eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing (23–50). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rundblad, G., and Annaz, D. 2010. Metaphor and metonymy comprehension: receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 547–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rushdie, S. 2008. The enchantress of Florence. London: Cape.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 2005. The ‘language instinct’ debate. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, O. 1999. “Like an animal I was treated”; Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse and Society, 10 (2), 191–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. de. 1960. Course in general linguistics, C. Bally, C. and A. Sechehaye (Eds.) W. Baskin (Trans.). London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
Schank, R., and Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Hillsdale N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scheppegrell, M. J. 1996. Abstraction and agency in middle school environmental education. In J. C. Bang, J. Door, R. J. Alexander, A. Fill, A. and F. Verhagen (Eds.), Language and ecology: proceedings of the symposium on ecolinguistics of AILA 96 Jyvaskyla (27–42). Odense, Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Schumacher, E. F. 1973/1999. Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered. Point Roberts WA and Vancouver: Hartley and Marks.Google Scholar
Semino, E. 2002. A sturdy baby or a derailing train? Metaphorical representation of the euro in British and Italian newspapers. Text, 22, 107–139.Google Scholar
2008. Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Steen, G. 2008. Metaphor in literature. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (232–246). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Deignan, A., and Littlemore, J. 2013. Metaphor, genre and re-contextualisation. Metaphor and Symbol, 28, 41–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seto, K. 1999. Distinguishing metonymy from synecdoche. In K.-U. Panther, and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (91–120). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P. 1981. Logic and its limits. London: Pan.Google Scholar
Shklovsky, V. 2017. Viktor Shklovsky: A reader. A. Berlina (Ed. and Trans.), London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Siegelman, E. Y. 1990. Metaphor and meaning in psychotherapy. London, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford U.P.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M. and Renouf, A. 1988. A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (140–160). London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R., Amaro, J. C. and Kang, S. K. 2013. Regular and novel metonymy in native Korean, Spanish, and English: experimental evidence for various acceptability. Metaphor and Symbol, 28 (4), 275–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spenney, M. J., and Haynes, O. H. 1989. Semantic and phonological performance in adults learning novel object and action words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 341–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986/1995. Relevance: communication and cognition (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (84–105). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steen, G. 1994. Understanding metaphor in literature. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
2007. Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stekauer, P., Valera, S. and Kortvelyessy, L. 2012. Word-formation in the world’s languages. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stekauer, P. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In P. Stekauer and R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (207–232). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and cultural connotations of common words. Linguistics and Education, 7 (4), 379–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis; English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szymanek, B. 2005. The latest trends in English word-formation. In P. Stekauer and R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (429–448). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tabossi, P. 1989. What’s in a context? In D. S. Gorfein (Ed.), Resolving semantic ambiguity (25–39). Berlin: Springer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2005. The fundamental system of spatial schemas in language. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: image schemas in cognitive linguistics (199–234) Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic categorization. (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
‘Ten years on: Bangladesh Rana Plaza Disaster’ 2023′. [URL]
Tennyson, A. 1969. In memoriam. In C. Ricks (Ed.), The poems of Tennyson (853–988). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Thomas, E. 1949. A Cat. In W. De la Mare (Ed.), Collected poems of Edward Thomas (117). London: Faber.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. S. 1973. On The Farm. In P. Larkin (Ed.), The Oxford book of twentieth-century English verse (465). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. B. 1984. Studies in the theory of ideology. London: Polity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, L. and Panther, K-U. 2000. Why we incorporate (in English): a post-Whorfian view. In M. Putz, and M. Verspoor, M. (Eds.), Explorations in linguistic relativity (319–343). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tibballs, G. 2006. The mammoth book of jokes. London: Robinson.Google Scholar
Tillyard, E. M. W. 1943. The Elizabethan world picture. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tournier, J. 1985. Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’Anglais contemporain. Paris-Genève: Champion-Slatkine.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In W. P. Lehmann, and Y. Malkiel (Eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics (245–271). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. The role of pragmatics in a theory of semantic change. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics conference, 2, 93–102. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tremblay, P. and Dick, A. S. 2016. Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classical model of language neurobiology. Brain and Language, 162, 60–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsur, R. 1987. On metaphorising. Jerusalem: Israel Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. 2005. Cognitive approach to word-formation. In P. Stekauer, P. and R. Lieber, R. (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (233–266). Dordrecht: Springer.pp. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. 1977. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. 1952. Précis de sémantique française 3rd edition. Bern: A Francke AG Verlag.Google Scholar
1962. Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Urban Dictionary. [URL]
Vendler, Z. 1968. Adjectives and nominalization. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Waldron, R. A. 1967. Sense and sense development. London: Deutsch.Google Scholar
Warren, B. 1992. What euphemisms tell us about the interpretation of words. Studia Linguistica, 46, 128–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999. Aspects of referential metonymy. In K.-U. Panther and G. Radden (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (121–37). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. An alternative account of referential metonymy and metaphor. In R. Dirven, and R. Pӧrings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (113–132). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, R. J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizenbaum, J. 1976. Computer power and human reason. New York San Fransisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Werth, P. 1994. Extended metaphor: a text world account. Language and Literature, 3 (2), 79–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. J. 1956. Language, thought and reality, J. B. Carroll (Ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1997. Understanding cultures through their keywords. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. 1983. Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society. London: Flamingo.Google Scholar
Winner, E. and Gardner, H. 1977. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain, 100, 717–729. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1953/2001. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wordnet [URL]
Wordsworth, W. 1950. My heart leaps up. In E. De Selincourt (Ed.), Poetical Works (62). London OUP.Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yarowsky, D. 1993. One sense per collocation. Proceedings, ARPA Human Language Technology Workshop, (266–271). Princeton, New Jersey: Advanced Research Project Agency. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamma, H. 2013. Patterns and categories in English suffixation and stress placement: a theoretical and quantitative study. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Zarcone, A., Padó, S. and Lenci, A. 2014. Inferring covert events in logical metonymies: a probe recognition experiment. [URL] CorpusID:5253181 retrieved 23/10/2023.
Ziegler, D. 2007. A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (5), 990–1028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. 1993. Aspects of literary comprehension: a cognitive approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar